e University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones eses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-16-2014 Evaluation of Mangrove Ecosystem Restoration Success in Southeast Asia Penluck Laulikitnont University of San Francisco, [email protected]Follow this and additional works at: hps://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons is Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the eses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Laulikitnont, Penluck, "Evaluation of Mangrove Ecosystem Restoration Success in Southeast Asia" (2014). Master's Projects and Capstones. 12. hps://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/12
68
Embed
Evaluation of Mangrove Ecosystem Restoration Success in ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The University of San FranciscoUSF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library |Geschke Center
Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects
Spring 5-16-2014
Evaluation of Mangrove Ecosystem RestorationSuccess in Southeast AsiaPenluck LaulikitnontUniversity of San Francisco, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone
Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons
This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digitalrepository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administratorof USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationLaulikitnont, Penluck, "Evaluation of Mangrove Ecosystem Restoration Success in Southeast Asia" (2014). Master's Projects andCapstones. 12.https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/12
Mangroves in class 1 are inundated by all high tides. The dominant species found in this type of
Rhizophora apiculata.
high tides. The dominant species found in this
, and Rhizophora
groves in class 3 are inundated by normal high tides. Most species thrive under these
conditions. This class of mangrove ecosystem has the highest biodiversity because most species
Xylocarpus
Mangroves in class 4 are inundated only during spring tides. Common species include Bruguiera
. This type of environment is
Mangroves in class 5 are inundated only during equinoctial or other exceptional high tides.
Herritera littoralis,
4.2.2 Zonation
Every mangrove species has its own level of salinity tolerance. Therefore, mangrove
zonation varies from place to place. Mangrove zonation is a result of environmental toler
and physiological preferences of individual mangrove species (Kairo et al. 2001). Moreover,
mangrove zonation is classified into three zones according to where they occur in relation to tidal
position consisting of seaward, mid, and landward zone (Wa
is the edge of the mangrove ecosystem next to the open water (tidal channel, slough, estuary or
ocean) which is fully exposed to all tides and frequent inundation (inundation class 1
conditions in the seaward zone are generally soft mud and sedimentary in origin. One of the
distinctive characteristics of mangrove species in this zone is having aerial roots that anchor and
supports the plant. On the other hand, the mid zone is subject to less regular tidal in
where the mangrove inhabitants are exposed to inundation only during the spring high tides
(inundation class 4). The soil condition in this zone is similar to the seaward zone. However, the
soil in the mid zone is more compact than those of the se
faces inundation only during the highest of spring tides (inundation class 4
freshwater from groundwater or land surface runoff. The landward zone is usually a narrow strip
of vegetation that may transition to a terrestrial forest. Figure 5 illustrates different species of
mangroves in different zones.
* Occurs in the western Pacific only
Figure 5. Typical mangrove zonation of all mangrove ecosystem (Waycott et al. 2011).
16
Every mangrove species has its own level of salinity tolerance. Therefore, mangrove
zonation varies from place to place. Mangrove zonation is a result of environmental toler
and physiological preferences of individual mangrove species (Kairo et al. 2001). Moreover,
mangrove zonation is classified into three zones according to where they occur in relation to tidal
position consisting of seaward, mid, and landward zone (Waycott et al. 2011). The seaward zone
is the edge of the mangrove ecosystem next to the open water (tidal channel, slough, estuary or
ocean) which is fully exposed to all tides and frequent inundation (inundation class 1
rd zone are generally soft mud and sedimentary in origin. One of the
distinctive characteristics of mangrove species in this zone is having aerial roots that anchor and
supports the plant. On the other hand, the mid zone is subject to less regular tidal in
where the mangrove inhabitants are exposed to inundation only during the spring high tides
(inundation class 4). The soil condition in this zone is similar to the seaward zone. However, the
soil in the mid zone is more compact than those of the seaward zone. The third zone, landward,
faces inundation only during the highest of spring tides (inundation class 4-5) and receives
freshwater from groundwater or land surface runoff. The landward zone is usually a narrow strip
tion to a terrestrial forest. Figure 5 illustrates different species of
Typical mangrove zonation of all mangrove ecosystem (Waycott et al. 2011).
Every mangrove species has its own level of salinity tolerance. Therefore, mangrove
zonation varies from place to place. Mangrove zonation is a result of environmental tolerance
and physiological preferences of individual mangrove species (Kairo et al. 2001). Moreover,
mangrove zonation is classified into three zones according to where they occur in relation to tidal
ycott et al. 2011). The seaward zone
is the edge of the mangrove ecosystem next to the open water (tidal channel, slough, estuary or
ocean) which is fully exposed to all tides and frequent inundation (inundation class 1-3). The soil
rd zone are generally soft mud and sedimentary in origin. One of the
distinctive characteristics of mangrove species in this zone is having aerial roots that anchor and
supports the plant. On the other hand, the mid zone is subject to less regular tidal influences
where the mangrove inhabitants are exposed to inundation only during the spring high tides
(inundation class 4). The soil condition in this zone is similar to the seaward zone. However, the
award zone. The third zone, landward,
5) and receives
freshwater from groundwater or land surface runoff. The landward zone is usually a narrow strip
tion to a terrestrial forest. Figure 5 illustrates different species of
Typical mangrove zonation of all mangrove ecosystem (Waycott et al. 2011).
17
4.2.3 Soil and Substrates
Mangroves grow in different combinations of sand, silt, and clay which often contain a high
concentration of organic matter. The different soil types can influence the distribution of
mangrove species. However, mangrove ecosystems grows best on low energy muddy shorelines
where there is an extensive suitable intertidal zone with abundant supply of fine grain sediment
(Field 2007). Soils that are stable, non-eroding, and have a sufficient depth are ideal to support
plant growth. Another typical feature of soil in mangrove ecosystems is the development of iron
pyrite (FeS2). Iron pyrite developed from the presence of iron, sulfate, organic matter, and the
lack of oxygen in freshwater before mixing with seawater. Chemical reactions under these
conditions lead to the formation of potential acid sulfate soils. Potential acid sulfate soils are
highly acidic and may be problematic for some mangrove species to grow (Giesen et al. 2006).
Moreover, the rate of sedimentation is another important factor, because some amount of
sedimentation is needed on site to help stabilize the seedlings. However, too much sedimentation
may stifle all plant growth in the ecosystem. On the other hand, sediment erosion is not good for
the restoration site because it weakens the root structures and increase the duration of inundation.
4.2.4 Salinity
Mangrove ecosystems are composed of halophytic plants (vegetation) that grow in high
salinity water. Mangrove species have adaptations that allow them to tolerant high levels of
salinity. Salinity is an important factor in reducing competition between mangrove species and
other vascular plants. However, mangrove species also need freshwater for their germination,
growth and survivorship. Due to the fact that mangroves are halophytes, it might seem strange
that these species required freshwater, but some mangrove species even grow well in only
slightly brackish conditions. On the other hand, hypersaline conditions can threaten all
mangroves species, as it creates the same problem that terrestrial plants face during drought.
Although some species will survive under the conditions of hypersalinity, none of the mangrove
species can grow optimally under these conditions. Therefore, the right salinity level can be
advantageous for mangrove species, but it can also have adverse effects on mangrove species
under the conditions of hypersalinity. Restoration planners need to take into consideration of the
dominant mangrove species in the restoration site and determine the optimum salinity levels or
thresholds for those plants (Field 1998; Waycott et al. 2011).
18
4.2.5 Tidal Fluctuation and Wave Energy
Although tidal influence is not a direct requirement for mangrove ecosystems, it plays an
important indirect role. Namely, tidal fluctuation in combination with salinity creates an
ecosystem that is only suitable for mangrove species. Thus, excluding other vascular plant
species and reducing competition. Tides also bring salt water up the estuary against the outward
flow of freshwater, allowing mangrove species to become well established inland. Moreover,
tides are capable of transporting nutrients into mangrove ecosystem as well as exporting organic
carbon and reduced sulfur compounds (Odum 1982). Tidal fluctuations are very important in
areas where there are high rate of evaporation because they help prevent the conditions of
hypersalinity in soil which is detrimental to mangrove species. Lastly, the dispersal of mangrove
seedlings and propagules are aided by tidal action.
In terms of wave energy, mangrove species grow best in depositional environments with low
wave energy. High tides are not ideal in a mangrove ecosystem because they prevents mangrove
propagule and seedling establishment. High wave energy also destroys the shallow mangrove
root system and prevents the accumulation of fine-grained soil composed of silt, clay, and high
content of organic matter.
4.2.6 Propagule Availability and Nursery Technique
Mangrove species are capable of regenerating naturally given suitable conditions for growth
and establishment. Mangrove seedlings and propagules can be transported into the site when
natural hydrology of restoration sites is restored. However, planting of mangrove species might
be necessary if natural recolonization of mangrove species does not occur. Therefore, it is very
important to know the appropriate nursery techniques. The establishment of a mangrove nursery
has been found to increase the survival of nursery seedlings up to 90% (Ravishankar and
Ramasubramanian 2004). Bovell (2011) identified the necessary steps for nursery technique into
the following:
1) Selecting a Suitable Nursery Site
The first step to be done in mangrove nursery is to select a suitable site. The mangrove
nursery site should be selected in the intertidal zone in close proximity to creeks with appropriate
drainage. Moreover, water quality of the site has to be good and the site needs to be fenced in
order to avoid potential propagule predation.
19
2) Nursery Bags
5 in. x 8 in. polythene bags should be used to raise mangrove seedlings in the nursery. This
will give the root enough space and stay healthy even after 2-3 months of growth in the nursery
bags.
3) Preparing Soil for Containers
Only clayey wetland soil should be used for preparing the containers because most mangrove
species grow well under these soil conditions. The clayey soil can be collected during low tides
in the mudflats. Hard materials and other debris should be removed before filling the nursery
bags with the soil.
4) Seedlings and Propagules Collection and Management
Mangrove species should be selected based on the salinity in relation to the restoration site.
Mangrove seedlings and propagules are sensitive living plants; therefore, they must be carefully
collected, cleaned, and protected to keep them alive and healthy. Collecting seeds from healthy,
mature trees is also very important; the more mature the tree the better quality seeds it produces.
Lastly, collected seeds should be planted within 48 hours of collection to avoid difficulty in seed
germination.
4.2.7 Ecological Knowledge and Community Participation
Rönnbäck (2007) reported that the attitudes towards mangrove restoration projects of local
communities are based on how much ecological knowledge they have of mangrove ecosystems.
People who have ecological knowledge of mangrove ecosystem will have positive attitude
towards restoration projects compared to people with low or without ecological knowledge of
mangrove ecosystems. Stone et al. (2008) suggested that community involvement may be a key
factor in increasing the potential for successful mangrove ecosystem restoration for two main
reasons. First, most agencies often have limited budget for the whole restoration project.
Therefore, having local community assistance with planting will help these agencies in
leveraging their budgets with the community contributions of cash, labor, physical resources, and
management inputs. Another reason is that any restoration efforts against the community’s wish
will usually result in a potential backlash and a unsuccessful program. Moreover, knowing the
reason that motivates local communities to participate in a restoration project is very useful and
20
will help managers in designing education, promoting community participation, and making
funding decisions in the future.
4.2.8 Monitoring
Once a mangrove ecosystem restoration project has been completed, it is essential to monitor
progress, maintain the site, and evaluate the success of the project. Although monitoring is one of
the final steps in restoration, it is one of the most important processes of restoration. There are
four main reasons for monitoring: evaluation of project effectiveness, maintenance, adaptive
management, and enhancement of science and management understandings (NOAA Restoration
Center and NOAA Coastal Services Center 2010). Without monitoring data, it is impossible to
determine the effectiveness and the success of restoration projects. Field (1998) suggested that
the monitoring period of mangrove restoration projects should take at least three to five years for
small-scale projects but realistically ten years. On the other hand, the monitoring period for
large-scale projects should be up to 30 years. Moreover, monitoring indicates maintenance needs
such as invasive species control, debris removal, signage maintenance, and fence maintenance.
Careful monitoring will allow project practitioners to observe the project carefully and applied
adaptive management whenever it is needed. According to (U.S. Department of the Interior
2010), adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving resource management by
learning from management outcomes Some of the common corrections in the middle of
restoration projects are channel modifications, hydrology corrections, and replanting or re-
seedling of vegetation. In addition, monitoring data from current restoration projects will
improve the understanding of mangrove ecosystems for future restoration projects as well as
increase the potential for project success.
Holl and Cairins (2002) categorized monitoring as three types of activities. The first activity
is the act of sampling/surveying, which is gathering data at a specific point in time. The second
monitoring activity is surveillance, a systematic and orderly gathering of specific data over a
period of time. Finally, the third category of monitoring is monitoring itself or the process of
surveillance undertaken to ensure that the goals and objectives of the restoration project are
being met. Therefore, it is important to examine the definition of monitoring to avoid collecting
endless data that are never used to evaluate the success of a restoration project.
21
First, the goals and objectives of restoration projects need to be clearly defined because
different goals and objectives require monitoring of different parameters to evaluate success.
Second, specific monitoring protocols must be outlined during the planning process, not after the
implementation of the restoration project. Unfortunately, many restoration projects tend to
determine the need for monitoring after the project has been implemented. As a result,
monitoring protocols might not be designed appropriately and sometimes monitoring will be
neglected, leading to a lack of data in most cases. Moreover, restoration projects are being
viewed as final products rather than an ongoing process in most cases. If restoration planners
viewed restoration as a final product, they may conclude that the project is successful after
restoration is completed without monitoring. However, restoration is an ongoing process that
requires a monitoring process in order to determine whether the project was successful or not
(Ambrose et al. 2007). Finally, monitoring will help restoration planners and managers
determine the factors influencing the success or failure of a particular restoration project. The
challenges of successful monitoring are being able to have an effective and specific design as
well as a commitment to implementation of the monitoring process. Elzinga et al. (1998)
identified several important points to consider during the monitoring process:
1) What are the parameters of interest?
2) What is an appropriate sampling size?
3) How sampling units should be positioned?
4) Should sampling units be permanent or temporary?
5) How many sampling units should be sampled?
6) How will data be presented?
Monitoring strategies and programs can vary depending on the type of ecosystems. In this
research, I will only discuss the monitoring process for mangroves ecosystem which falls into the
wetland category. Developing monitoring protocols for wetland ecosystems is one of the most
challenging to establish. Wetlands are transitional between aquatic and terrestrial systems. Some
of the common parameters monitored in wetland ecosystem are diversity, vegetation structure,
and ecological processes (Ruiz-jaen and Aide 2005; Wortley et al. 2013). Species diversity is
usually measured by determining the richness and abundance of organisms within different
trophic levels. Whereas vegetation structure is often determined by measuring vegetation cover,
22
woody plant density, biomass, or growth form. These measures are useful for predicting the
trends of plant succession in an ecosystem. Ecological processes such as nutrient cycling and
biological interactions are also important to measure because they provide information on the
resilience of a restored ecosystem.
5 PLANTATION ATTEMPTS
The widespread loss and degradation of mangrove ecosystems have caused an increase in
awareness and number of restoration efforts throughout the world. The plantation approach is
one of the primary approaches that is used worldwide for mangrove ecosystem restoration. The
plantation approach can establish a new mangrove ecosystem through afforestation on intertidal
flats and other areas where they would not normally grow. The plantation approach can also be
used at a former mangrove forest. There have been a number of documented mangrove
restoration project successes and failures using the plantation approach (Erftemeijer and Lewis
III 1999).
In Hong Kong, Kandelia candel mangroves were replanted in an intertidal mudflat area of
1,000 m2 as a mitigation project to compensate from the damage from coastal construction
activities. The entire project cost approximately HK$ 1,000 and took place from 1990-1991. The
survival rate of the project was reported as “high”. However, there are no available data to
support this statement.
In Ha Tinh Province of Vietnam, a mudflat area of 580 ha was planted with mangrove
species Kandelia candel from 1989-1993. The project was funded by various NGOs with coastal
protection as the main goal for the project. Survival rates were reported to be around 40%;
however, more detailed data are still lacking.
Sanyal (1998) documented a mangrove restoration failure in West Bangal, India using the
plantation approach. The project was implemented as part of the coastal zone management from
1989-1995. The objective of the restoration project was to artificially plant up to 9,050 ha of
mangroves in barren reclaimed land. The success rate of the project was reported to be as low as
1.52%. However, it is unclear how they determine this success rate such as mangrove cover,
density, or survivorship (Lewis III 2000).
In North Sulawesi, Indonesia, mangrove species have been planted on an abandoned shrimp
pond five times over the period of eight years. Mangrove seedlings were planted without regard
23
to ecological requirements that affect the effectiveness of the restoration project. Examples of
ecological requirements are hydrology, inundation, salinity levels, and zonation. As a result of
neglecting the ecological requirements, mangrove seedlings died within a year after each
planting.
Several failures of the plantation approach have been documented in the Philippines. One
example was the Central Visayas Regional Project-1. Mangrove species were planted in an area
of 1,000 ha that was largely composed of mudflats and some degraded mangrove areas. This
US$ 3.5 million project was funded by the World Bank and took place from 1984-1992.
Monitoring data was taken from 1995-1996 and the data collected indicated that only 18.4% of
the planted mangrove species in 492 ha survived (Lewis III 2005).
In 2006, two mangrove restoration projects were implemented in the Philippines which were
sponsored by the PEW Grant for Mangrove Conservation. The two projects are still active as of
today. The first project was conducted along the Iloilo River where 400 seedlings of Avicennia
marina were planted along the riverbank. The survivorship of the seedlings was approximately
50% after six months, but dropped to <10% after 1.5 years after project implementation (Samson
and Rollon 2008). Frequent flooding and inundation was the main contributor to this high
mortality rate, other factors included anthropogenic activities such as water pollution, digging up
of substrate, and trampling by fishermen.
The second restoration project was conducted in 5 ha of coastline in the Dumangas
municipality. Approximately 20,000 mangrove seedlings that were planted in Ermita, Dumangas
died within 3 months of the plantation. Species composition included: 90% Avicennia marina
and 10% Sonneratia alba and Rhizophora spp. One of the factors that affected mortality was the
location of the plantation. The seedlings were planted in the lower intertidal to subtidal flats with
seagrass patches. Therefore, the seedlings suffered from inundation as evidenced by rotting
stems. Figure 6 shows the timeline of the planted mangrove species in Ermita, Dumangas.
Figure 6. Mangrove species planted in Ermita, Dumangas in 2006.
months of planting. C. Rotting stems due to frequent inundation.
subtidal zone with visible seagrass beds. F. Problems with barnacles (Primavera and Esteban 2008).
Many mangrove ecosystem restoration projects using the plantation approach have also been
documented in Thailand. Some documented projects succeeded as well as some failed.
an experimental mangrove plantation was planted on mudflats in Pattani Bay, Thailand. After
three years of project implementation, a study showed high mortality rate for seedlings of
Excocercaria agallocha and Bruguiera cylindrical
and Rhizophora spp. seedlings showed 30
56% survival three years after project implementation. Another afforestation project in Samut
Songkram, Thailand was implemented in an
were Rhizophora mucronata and
planted species were low, especially for
to damages caused by push-net boats, propagule predation by crabs, infestations of barnacles
settling on the seedlings, and poor choice of mangrove species planted on mudflats.
A large increase in mangrove restoration efforts was due to the aftermath of the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami where it was proven by Kamthonkiat et al. (2011) that mangroves provide
coastal protection against tsunami. A mangrove restoration project in Phang Nga, Thailand
24
Mangrove species planted in Ermita, Dumangas in 2006. A. Healthy Avicennia marina after 3 weeks.
Rotting stems due to frequent inundation. D. Problems with algae and sediments.
th visible seagrass beds. F. Problems with barnacles (Primavera and Esteban 2008).
Many mangrove ecosystem restoration projects using the plantation approach have also been
documented in Thailand. Some documented projects succeeded as well as some failed.
an experimental mangrove plantation was planted on mudflats in Pattani Bay, Thailand. After
three years of project implementation, a study showed high mortality rate for seedlings of
Bruguiera cylindrical (survival ranging from 5-18%).
spp. seedlings showed 30-34% survival and Avicennia marina seedlings showed
56% survival three years after project implementation. Another afforestation project in Samut
Songkram, Thailand was implemented in an 800 ha mudflat area. The planted mangrove species
and Aegialites rotunddifolia. However, the survival rates for the
planted species were low, especially for Rhizophora mucronata. The high mortality rate was due
net boats, propagule predation by crabs, infestations of barnacles
settling on the seedlings, and poor choice of mangrove species planted on mudflats.
A large increase in mangrove restoration efforts was due to the aftermath of the 2004 Indian
an Tsunami where it was proven by Kamthonkiat et al. (2011) that mangroves provide
coastal protection against tsunami. A mangrove restoration project in Phang Nga, Thailand
after 3 weeks. B. Dead after 3
Problems with algae and sediments. E. Planting was in the
th visible seagrass beds. F. Problems with barnacles (Primavera and Esteban 2008).
Many mangrove ecosystem restoration projects using the plantation approach have also been
documented in Thailand. Some documented projects succeeded as well as some failed. In 1990,
an experimental mangrove plantation was planted on mudflats in Pattani Bay, Thailand. After
three years of project implementation, a study showed high mortality rate for seedlings of
18%). eriops tagal
seedlings showed
56% survival three years after project implementation. Another afforestation project in Samut
800 ha mudflat area. The planted mangrove species
. However, the survival rates for the
. The high mortality rate was due
net boats, propagule predation by crabs, infestations of barnacles
settling on the seedlings, and poor choice of mangrove species planted on mudflats.
A large increase in mangrove restoration efforts was due to the aftermath of the 2004 Indian
an Tsunami where it was proven by Kamthonkiat et al. (2011) that mangroves provide
coastal protection against tsunami. A mangrove restoration project in Phang Nga, Thailand was
implemented in 2005 to help mitigate the effects of the tsunami. However, the
2006 gradually decreased after the implementation of the restoration project by 7
to the reference year of 2003 where the total mangrove area was 20,678 ha (Figure 7). The
restoration project was considered unsuccessful based o
trees, and recovery that was less than average as well as gradually decreasing mangrove areas
(Kamthonkiat et al. 2011).
Figure 7. Changes in mangrove area in three districts of Phang Nga,
6 EMR ATTEMPTS
The other common mangrove ecosystem restoration approach is called Ecological Mangrove
Restoration (EMR). EMR approach focuses on correcting the hydrology of restoration sites so
that mangrove seedlings and propagules can recolonize naturally. Although not as many EMR
projects have been documented compared to the plantation approach, there are still some
documented projects. One of the earliest documented EMR implementation was carried out in
the 1950s. This restoration effort started in order to restore mangrove areas affected by
impoundments of the central east coast of Florida (Lewis III and Gilmore 2007). Fish data from
pre- and post-impoundment of the restoration site showed that hydrologic restoration r
resident, transient and omnivore fish communities (Table 4). Moreover, invertebrate and plant
communities were also restored by the EMR approach in this restoration project through
reintroduction of tidal connection to the mangrove area restored. T
project was considered successful due to the increased abundance of fish.
25
implemented in 2005 to help mitigate the effects of the tsunami. However, the mangrove area in
2006 gradually decreased after the implementation of the restoration project by 7
to the reference year of 2003 where the total mangrove area was 20,678 ha (Figure 7). The
restoration project was considered unsuccessful based on the growth rate, number of surviving
trees, and recovery that was less than average as well as gradually decreasing mangrove areas
mangrove area in three districts of Phang Nga, Thailand (Kamthonkiat et al. 2011)
The other common mangrove ecosystem restoration approach is called Ecological Mangrove
Restoration (EMR). EMR approach focuses on correcting the hydrology of restoration sites so
propagules can recolonize naturally. Although not as many EMR
projects have been documented compared to the plantation approach, there are still some
documented projects. One of the earliest documented EMR implementation was carried out in
restoration effort started in order to restore mangrove areas affected by
impoundments of the central east coast of Florida (Lewis III and Gilmore 2007). Fish data from
impoundment of the restoration site showed that hydrologic restoration r
resident, transient and omnivore fish communities (Table 4). Moreover, invertebrate and plant
communities were also restored by the EMR approach in this restoration project through
reintroduction of tidal connection to the mangrove area restored. Therefore, the restoration
project was considered successful due to the increased abundance of fish.
mangrove area in
2006 gradually decreased after the implementation of the restoration project by 7-8% compared
to the reference year of 2003 where the total mangrove area was 20,678 ha (Figure 7). The
n the growth rate, number of surviving
trees, and recovery that was less than average as well as gradually decreasing mangrove areas
Thailand (Kamthonkiat et al. 2011).
The other common mangrove ecosystem restoration approach is called Ecological Mangrove
Restoration (EMR). EMR approach focuses on correcting the hydrology of restoration sites so
propagules can recolonize naturally. Although not as many EMR
projects have been documented compared to the plantation approach, there are still some
documented projects. One of the earliest documented EMR implementation was carried out in
restoration effort started in order to restore mangrove areas affected by
impoundments of the central east coast of Florida (Lewis III and Gilmore 2007). Fish data from
impoundment of the restoration site showed that hydrologic restoration restored
resident, transient and omnivore fish communities (Table 4). Moreover, invertebrate and plant
communities were also restored by the EMR approach in this restoration project through
herefore, the restoration
Table 4. Comparison of fish abundance before and after EMR in the central east coast of Florida (Lewis III and Gilmore 2007).
Another EMR attempt was conducted in Cross Bayou, Pinellas County, Florida in 1999. This
restoration project was part of a negotiated settlement following the oil spill in Tampa Bay in
1993. The area of the restoration site was 1.9 ha along the Gulf of Mex
Petersburg where other mangrove areas were successfully reproducing (Lewis III et al. 2005).
Therefore, restoration planners of the project expected natural regeneration to occur because of
the abundant seedlings in the area. As a re
approximately $24,000/ha in restoration costs. The hydrology and topography of the restoration
site were corrected to provide suitable conditions for recolonization of mangrove seedlings. The
result of the project was satisfying and considered as successful because the success criteria were
met within three years of restoration. Mangrove cover was 3.7% after the first three months then
increased to 94.7% after five years of project implementation (Figure 8
26
before and after EMR in the central east coast of Florida (Lewis III and Gilmore 2007).
Another EMR attempt was conducted in Cross Bayou, Pinellas County, Florida in 1999. This
restoration project was part of a negotiated settlement following the oil spill in Tampa Bay in
1993. The area of the restoration site was 1.9 ha along the Gulf of Mexico coastline near St.
Petersburg where other mangrove areas were successfully reproducing (Lewis III et al. 2005).
Therefore, restoration planners of the project expected natural regeneration to occur because of
the abundant seedlings in the area. As a result, they did not perform any planting which saved
approximately $24,000/ha in restoration costs. The hydrology and topography of the restoration
site were corrected to provide suitable conditions for recolonization of mangrove seedlings. The
e project was satisfying and considered as successful because the success criteria were
met within three years of restoration. Mangrove cover was 3.7% after the first three months then
increased to 94.7% after five years of project implementation (Figure 8).
before and after EMR in the central east coast of Florida (Lewis III and Gilmore 2007).
Another EMR attempt was conducted in Cross Bayou, Pinellas County, Florida in 1999. This
restoration project was part of a negotiated settlement following the oil spill in Tampa Bay in
ico coastline near St.
Petersburg where other mangrove areas were successfully reproducing (Lewis III et al. 2005).
Therefore, restoration planners of the project expected natural regeneration to occur because of
sult, they did not perform any planting which saved
approximately $24,000/ha in restoration costs. The hydrology and topography of the restoration
site were corrected to provide suitable conditions for recolonization of mangrove seedlings. The
e project was satisfying and considered as successful because the success criteria were
met within three years of restoration. Mangrove cover was 3.7% after the first three months then
Figure 8. Mangrove cover increased from 3.7% to 94.7% within five year of project implementation (Lewis III et al. 2005).
One of the most successful mangrove ecosystem restoration projects using the EMR
approach to date was the restoration of 500 ha area of mangrove restoration in West Lake Park,
Hollywood, Florida. The restoration project started in 1989 and ended in 1996. T
restore mangrove forest using a reference site as the model, which was the adjacent undisturbed
forest. In order to recreate a site similar to the reference site, tidal creeks and shallow mudflats
were added and the slope grade was adjusted
(Lewis 2011). As a result of correcting the hydrology and geomorphology of the restoration site,
no planting of mangrove species was necessary. All mangrove species naturally regenerated at
the restoration site or what Lewis III (2009) called “volunteer” mangroves
and propagules that colonized the site on their own after appropriate biophysical conditions were
established. Some common mangrove species that volunteered at the restoration site a
Rhizophora mangle, Avicennia germinans
photo documentation of the West Lake EMR project from 1989
27
Mangrove cover increased from 3.7% to 94.7% within five year of project implementation (Lewis III et al. 2005).
One of the most successful mangrove ecosystem restoration projects using the EMR
approach to date was the restoration of 500 ha area of mangrove restoration in West Lake Park,
Hollywood, Florida. The restoration project started in 1989 and ended in 1996. T
restore mangrove forest using a reference site as the model, which was the adjacent undisturbed
forest. In order to recreate a site similar to the reference site, tidal creeks and shallow mudflats
were added and the slope grade was adjusted from +27 cm to +42 cm mean seal level (MSL)
(Lewis 2011). As a result of correcting the hydrology and geomorphology of the restoration site,
no planting of mangrove species was necessary. All mangrove species naturally regenerated at
r what Lewis III (2009) called “volunteer” mangroves – mangrove seedlings
and propagules that colonized the site on their own after appropriate biophysical conditions were
established. Some common mangrove species that volunteered at the restoration site a
Avicennia germinans, and Laguncularia racemosa. Figure 9 shows the
photo documentation of the West Lake EMR project from 1989-1996.
Mangrove cover increased from 3.7% to 94.7% within five year of project implementation (Lewis III et al. 2005).
One of the most successful mangrove ecosystem restoration projects using the EMR
approach to date was the restoration of 500 ha area of mangrove restoration in West Lake Park,
Hollywood, Florida. The restoration project started in 1989 and ended in 1996. The goal was to
restore mangrove forest using a reference site as the model, which was the adjacent undisturbed
forest. In order to recreate a site similar to the reference site, tidal creeks and shallow mudflats
from +27 cm to +42 cm mean seal level (MSL)
(Lewis 2011). As a result of correcting the hydrology and geomorphology of the restoration site,
no planting of mangrove species was necessary. All mangrove species naturally regenerated at
mangrove seedlings
and propagules that colonized the site on their own after appropriate biophysical conditions were
established. Some common mangrove species that volunteered at the restoration site are
. Figure 9 shows the
Figure 9. Time sequence over 78 months of EMR project in West Lake, Florida+ 28 months taken in November 1991.
Another EMR attempt was conducted in Puerto Rico. Mangrove species in more than 100 ha
of mangrove areas of Laguna Boca Quebrada, Vieques were killed due to an alteration of
hydrology in 1985. However, the area was vegetated in 1991 after the hydrologic regime was
restored by removing a roadway (causeway) that consisted of fill material across the historic tid
connection to the ocean (Turner and Lewis III 1997). However, there are no data available to
support the success of this project and what parameters were measured to determine success.
7 MAIN FINDINGS
The aerial extent of mangrove ecosystems has declined by 50 percent in the last century
mainly due to mangrove land conversion to aquaculture, agriculture, and urbaniz
decline in mangrove ecosystems has led to a concern about the loss of ecos
resulting in an increase in mangrove ecosystem restoration efforts worldwide.
years, ecological restoration has been strongly advocated as a measure to
damage from urban development
projects aim to increase extent of
ecosystems again. Two primary approaches for mangrove ecosystem restoration
as discussed in Sections 5 and 6, na
restoration (EMR) approach. The
ecosystem restoration approaches.
mangrove ecosystem restoration projects, a lack of restoration site understandings, and a lack of
monitoring data. These factors made it difficult to compare the two mangrove ecosystem
28
Time sequence over 78 months of EMR project in West Lake, Florida. A. Time zero taken in July 1989. + 28 months taken in November 1991. C. Time zero + 78 months taken in January 1996 (Lewis III 2011).
Another EMR attempt was conducted in Puerto Rico. Mangrove species in more than 100 ha
f Laguna Boca Quebrada, Vieques were killed due to an alteration of
hydrology in 1985. However, the area was vegetated in 1991 after the hydrologic regime was
restored by removing a roadway (causeway) that consisted of fill material across the historic tid
connection to the ocean (Turner and Lewis III 1997). However, there are no data available to
support the success of this project and what parameters were measured to determine success.
The aerial extent of mangrove ecosystems has declined by 50 percent in the last century
mainly due to mangrove land conversion to aquaculture, agriculture, and urbaniz
decline in mangrove ecosystems has led to a concern about the loss of ecosystem services,
resulting in an increase in mangrove ecosystem restoration efforts worldwide. During the last 10
years, ecological restoration has been strongly advocated as a measure to offset ecological
damage from urban development as mitigation (Twilley et al. 1999). Mangrove restoration
extent of mangrove forests and return these areas into functioning
wo primary approaches for mangrove ecosystem restoration
as discussed in Sections 5 and 6, namely the plantation approach and the ecological mangrove
. The initial goal of my research was to compare the two mangrove
ecosystem restoration approaches. However, there was insufficient documentation of previous
tem restoration projects, a lack of restoration site understandings, and a lack of
monitoring data. These factors made it difficult to compare the two mangrove ecosystem
Time zero taken in July 1989. B. Time zero Time zero + 78 months taken in January 1996 (Lewis III 2011).
Another EMR attempt was conducted in Puerto Rico. Mangrove species in more than 100 ha
f Laguna Boca Quebrada, Vieques were killed due to an alteration of
hydrology in 1985. However, the area was vegetated in 1991 after the hydrologic regime was
restored by removing a roadway (causeway) that consisted of fill material across the historic tidal
connection to the ocean (Turner and Lewis III 1997). However, there are no data available to
support the success of this project and what parameters were measured to determine success.
The aerial extent of mangrove ecosystems has declined by 50 percent in the last century
mainly due to mangrove land conversion to aquaculture, agriculture, and urbanized areas. This
ystem services,
During the last 10
ecological
y et al. 1999). Mangrove restoration
into functioning
have been used
and the ecological mangrove
to compare the two mangrove
However, there was insufficient documentation of previous
tem restoration projects, a lack of restoration site understandings, and a lack of
monitoring data. These factors made it difficult to compare the two mangrove ecosystem
29
restoration approaches to determine and evaluate which approach was a more effective mangrove
ecosystem restoration approach.
7.1 Lack of Site Understanding
Mangrove ecosystems can self-repair successfully within 15-30 years, given the right
hydrology and availability of mangrove species waterborne seedlings (Wetlands Reserve
Program 2000). If the hydrology is right but natural recolonization does not occur, mangrove
ecosystems can then be established by active planting. However, many mangrove ecosystem
projects move immediately to the planting process without determining why natural recovery has
not occurred. One of the reasons that natural recovery does not occur can be due to a blocked
tidal flow that prevents mangrove seedlings and propagule from recolonizing. The most common
cause of restoration project failure is from planting of inappropriate mangrove species in
locations that do not have suitable conditions for mangrove species to thrive. In general, these
causes of failure resulted from a lack of understanding of the physical environment of the
restoration site and species requirements or tolerance limits. Mangrove Action Project (2013)
highlighted the important questions that are often overlooked in the planning process of a
mangrove ecosystem restoration projects below:
1) What is the history of the restoration site?
2) What mangrove species grow there historically before it was impacted?
3) Which zone did each species grow?
4) What caused the destruction or degradation of the mangroves?
5) What are each species hydrological requirements?
6) Where were the freshwater inputs into the area?
7) Where did exchange of tidal and seawater take place?
7.2 Lack of Documentation
Although many mangrove restoration projects have been implemented around the world,
only a small amount of these projects have been planned or studied by scientists. As a result,
there is often a lack of documentation of project evaluation especially when the project fails
(Kamili and Hashim 2008). It is very important to document each restoration project regardless
of success or failure. Without sufficient information on previous restoration efforts, it is difficult
30
to review and determine the reasons for success or failure of most restoration projects. However,
it is believed that the lack of using an ecological planning process and setting realistic goals are
the main reasons why most restoration projects fail.
7.3 Lack of Monitoring Data
I have found that there are insufficient monitoring data available to compare and evaluate the
two mangrove ecosystem restoration approaches. This makes it scientifically impossible to
determine which approach is a more effective restoration approach. Although there are many
mangrove ecosystem restoration projects that have been reported as successful, there were
insufficient data to support how the project was evaluated as successful. For example, in the
mangrove restoration project in Hong Kong that took place from 1990-1991, the survival rate of
replanted mangrove species for the project was reported as “high” and the project was considered
a success. However, there are no data to support this reported statement. Because the project
length was only a year, the reported “high” survival rate is misleading. The monitoring period
would need to be at least 3-5 years after project implementation in order to determine the initial
progress of the overall restoration project. Moreover, I found projects that neglected the entire
monitoring process all together. This challenges the whole restoration project because success
cannot be evaluated. There are several reasons why it is important to monitor a restoration site
after project implementation:
1) To record the progress of restoration.
2) To quantify the recruitment, establishment, and early growth rate of mangrove species in
an initial period after restoration (usually 3-5 years).
3) To identify early issues with mangrove species establishment and use adaptive
management strategies to rectify the problem.
4) To increase community participation, knowledge, and understanding of the entire process
of restoration.
5) To inform future management strategies in the restored mangrove ecosystem.
6) To provide helpful data for future mangrove ecosystem restoration projects.
7) To evaluate the success of a restoration project.
31
8 MANAGEMENT RECOMENDATIONS
8.1 Development of a Monitoring Protocol for Southeast Asia
Although I have been told and have read that EMR is a better alternative for mangrove
ecosystem restoration, I cannot make this conclusion due to the lack of monitoring data available
to compare and evaluate the two restoration approaches. Therefore, I developed a monitoring
protocol that I recommend be incorporated in the final stage of a restoration project.
The objective of developing this monitoring protocol was to evaluate the restoration of
mangrove ecosystems consistently throughout Southeast Asia. Some of the common parameters
that will be monitored include planting survivorship, vegetation structure, species diversity, and
sedimetation. This monitoring protocol was adaptated from internationally accepted monitoring
methods appropriate for Southeast Asia, with three levels of intensity of monitoring (Coffman
2012; Ellison 2012). In addition, a photo monitoring was incorporated into the protocol to
monitor the overall visual change of the restoration site over the monitoring period (Shaff et al.
2007).
Level 1:
Transect based survey recording mangrove locations, species, mangrove conditions, and
identifying stressors. Level 1 is quick to do and is a suitable for capacity building with
community groups.
Level 2:
Vegetation plots in each zone recording community structure, species diversity, height, diameter
of tress, and density of seedlings. Level 2 takes about one day per transect and is better carried
out by project staff with the help of community involvement.
Level 3:
We recommend monitoring sedimentation in level 3, although other factors may be monitored
depending on the project objectives. This level takes the greatest amount of time but can produce
the most detailed information on sedimentation trends.
Photo Monitoring:
Photo point monitoring is a process of taking repeated photographs of the restoration site over a
period of time at the same location. Photo monitoring is an easy yet effective monitoring method
to observe the overall ecosystem change over time.
32
8.1.1 Level 1: Transect Based Survey
Level 1 monitoring documents what mangroves are currently present and the conditions of
the baseline mangrove restoration site. In this protocol, I propose an interrupted line transect
method. This technique surveys the mangrove species that are present along the transect line in
the various zones at every meter mark or random points along the transect. It is recommended
that Level 1 monitoring be carried out every three months (four times a year).
8.1.1.1 Planning and Preparation for Fieldwork
1) Conduct fieldwork during low tide period.
2) Determine the extent of the restoration site by using the most recent aerial photo available.
3) Examine the aerial photo obtained or use Google Earth to identify the approximate extent of
mangrove zones present, disturbances, and changes of mangrove forest over time.
4) Photocopy the aerial photograph, preferably colored copy. Mark the vegetation zones on the
photo and also include a scale and the North arrow. This will be the copy that you will take
into the field to accurately check the types and positions of the zones.
5) Draw a line on the copy of the aerial photo to determine the location of the transect. It is
recommended to establish at least three transects in each restoration site and a transect should
start from upland to the open water (landward to seaward zone, Figure 5). All transects
should be placed perpendicular to the waterline.
6) Mark any prominent landmarks or geomorphic features on the copy of the aerial photo to
help you identify the location of transect lines once you are in the field.
7) Assign monitoring team. Never perform fieldwork alone. Always work in a group of two or
three for safety and to get representative averages for monitoring data.
8) Make sure you have all the field equipment needed before heading to the field (see Table 5
for an equipment checklist).
33
Table 5. Equipment checklist for fieldwork.
EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Pencils Photocopy of the aerial photo of the site
Copies of data sheets GPS
Clip board Ziplock bags for plant collection
Measuring stick / Telescoping measuring rod Tape measures (2)
100 m fiberglass transect survey tapes (3) Flagging stakes
Flagging tape Hammer
Numbered tags Steel nails
1m PVC pole (2/transect, 2/photo point) Mangrove species plant list/guidebook
Camera and tripod Appropriate clothing (rubber boots, hat, water, etc.)
Densitometer Clinometer (with percent scale)
8.1.1.2 Fieldwork
Steps for interrupted line transect method:
1) Establish at least three transects that are at least 20 m apart for each site. Depending on the
size of the site, the distance between each transect may be more or less than 20 m.
2) The starting point (0 m) of the transect line should begin at the edge of the terrestrial
forests/upland and end at the seaward zone (near seawater).
3) After determining the starting and ending point of the transect, place a PVC pole at each end.
4) Record the GPS coordinates of starting and ending point for each transect on the data sheet.
5) Tie the 100 m transect tape to the PVC pole at the starting point and make sure it is secure.
Then lay the transect tape at the ending point. Again, note that all transect lines must be
perpendicular to the edge of water.
6) Walk along the transect line once to explore the environment surrounding each transect.
Walk only on one side along the transect line to avoid trampling on vegetation to be sampled.
7) Repeat steps 1-6 to set up the remaining transect lines.
34
Monitoring steps for interrupted line transect:
Level 1 monitoring focuses primarily on mangrove species diversity are present in the site
and the sites condition. Therefore, we will monitor only the species present and their growth
forms. The interrupted line transect method monitors the species present along a certain interval
of the transect line within each vegetation zone.
1) Record the monitoring period on the data sheet to indicate how long it has been after
restoration. If it is the first monitoring of the site, put T0 (Time zero). If the second
monitoring period takes place 3 months after the first monitoring period (T0), put T0 + 3
months on the data sheet.
2) Walk along the transect line and record all the species present at each meter mark (1m
interval). For longer transect lengths, other interval can be set to record the species present
such as every other meter or at every 5m mark depending on the total length of the transect.
3) Record the species name(s) on the data sheet. Use the mangrove species guidebook to help
identify each species.
4) Take a photo of and collect a sample of unidentifiable species in a ziplock bag and label the
bag as “unknown” following by a number (e.g. unknown 1). Then bring it back with you to
have it keyed out later by expert/botanist.
5) Observe the vegetation and record your observations on the data sheet.
Photo monitoring monitors the overall change of the site over time. In this protocol, I
propose a feature photo point monitoring method. This method documents visual changes
occurring at a fixed point through time. This method is widely used for restoration projects.
Photo monitoring should be done every six months.
8.1.4.1 Fieldwork
Setting up photo points:
1) Select a fixed location in the site that is the most representative. The most important criteria
for establishing ideal photo point locations is to have adequate lightings to take the photo and
the location must be accessible both before and after restoration.
2) Place one 1m PVC pole into the ground and mark with a brightly colored flagging tape. This
will be your camera point or the point where you take the photo.
3) Record the GPS coordinates on the data sheet.
4) Place the second 1m PVC pole 5m apart from the camera point and also mark it with a
brightly colored flagging tape. This will be your feature photo point.
5) Record the GPS coordinates on the data sheet.
6) Record the monitoring period on the data sheet to indicate how long it has been after
restoration. If it is the first monitoring of the site, put T0 (Time zero) and T0 + 6 months if the
next monitoring period takes place 6 months after time zero.
Taking baseline photos:
1) Record the time and weather conditions on the data sheet. Always take photos when the sun
is less intense such as early morning or late afternoon. Avoid taking photos when visibility is
poor. There should be a distinctive landmark in the photo to help line up subsequent photos.
2) Record the type of camera/lens and the camera orientation on the data sheet and try to use the
same camera for the next monitoring period but always take photos in the same orientation.
3) Set up a camera on the tripod at the camera point marked with the PVC pole.
4) Use a measuring tape to measure the height of the tripod and record it on the data sheet.
5) Take the picture of the site and make sure that photo point is marked with another PVC pole
5m apart is in the center of the photo.
PHOTO MONITORING DATA SHEET
Date: ____________ Time of Monitoring: ___________ Site Name: ____________________
Monitoring Period: _____________ Camera Model: ___________ Tripod Height: ____________
Camera Orientation: __________ Weather Condition: ___________ Direction Facing: __________
Names of Data Collectors: ___________________, ___________________, ___________________
GPS Coordinates of Each Photo Monitoring Points
Latitude Longitude
Camera Point
Photo Point
[ATTACH PHOTO HERE]
56
LITERATURE CITED
Ambrose, R. F., and S. F. Lee. 2007. An evaluation of compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991-2002. Final Report.
Barbier, E. B., and M. Cox. 2004. An economic analysis of shrimp farm expansion and
mangrove conversion in Thailand. Land Economics 80:389–407. Biswas, S. R., A. U. Mallik, J. K. Choudhury, and A. Nishat. 2008. A unified framework for the
restoration of Southeast Asian mangroves—bridging ecology, society and economics. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17:365–383.
Georgetown, Guyana. Bucher, D., M. Baronio, and D. Stokes. 2013. Monitoring mangrove condition: Gladstone
Harbor, Fishermans Landing - March 2013. Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia.
California Native Plant Society. Protocol for combined vegetation rapid assessment field survey
and relevé sampling field form. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California, USA.
Callaway, J. C., and J. B. Zedler. 2009. Conserving the diverse marshes of the Pacific Coast.
Pages 285–308 in B. R. Silliman, E. Grosholz, and M. D. Bertness. Human impacts on salt marshes: a global perspective. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.
Clewell, A., J. Rieger, and J. Munro. 2005. Guidelines for developing and managing ecological
restoration projects. 2nd edition. Society for Ecological Restoration International. Coffman, G. C. 2012. Redwook creek restoration revegetation monitoring. University of San
Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. Coulloudon, B. 1999. Sampling vegetation attributes. Technical Reference BLM/RS/ST-
96/002+1730. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado, USA.
Ellison, A. M. 2000. Mangrove restoration: do we know enough? Restoration Ecology 8:219–
229. Ellison, J., V. Jungblut, P. Anderson, and C. Slaven. 2012. Manual for mangrove monitoring in
the Pacific Islands Region. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme, Apia, Samoa.
57
Elster, C. 2000. Reasons for reforestation success and failure with three mangrove species in Colombia. Forest Ecology and Management 131:201–214.
Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant
populations. BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Business Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Erftemeijer, P. L. A., and R. R. Lewis III. 2000. Planting mangroves on intertidal mudflats:
habitat restoration or habitat conversion? Pages 156-165 in Proceedings of the ECOTONE VIII Seminar Enhancing Coastal Ecosystems Restoration for the 21st Century, Ranong, Thailand, May 23-28, 1999. Royal Forest Department of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand.
Feller, I. C., and M. Sitnik. 2003. Mangrove ecology workshop manual. Smithsonian Institution
Scholarly Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Field, C. D. 1998. Rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems: an overview. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 37:383–392. Giesen, W., S. Wulffraat, M. Zieren, and L. Scholten. 2006. Mangrove guidebook for Southeast
Asia. RAP Publication 2006/07. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Wetlands International, Bangkok, Thailand.
Giri, C., Z. Zhu, L. L. Tieszen, A. Singh, S. Gillette, and J. A. Kelmelis. 2008. Mangrove forest
distributions and dynamics (1975–2005) of the tsunami-affected region of Asia. Journal of Biogeography 35:519–528.
Giri, C., E. Ochieng, L. L. Tieszen, Z. Zhu, A. Singh, T. Loveland, J. Masek, and N. Duke. 2011.
Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20:154–159.
Holl, K. D., and J. Cairins Jr. 2002. Monitoring and appraisal. Pages 410-429 in M. R. Perrow
and A. J. Davy, editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Kairo, J. G. 2001. Ecology and restoration of mangrove systems in Kenya. Dissertation. Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Kairo, J. G., J. Bosire, and N. Koedam. 2001. Restoration and management of mangrove systems
– a lesson for and from the East African region. South African Journal of Botany 67:383–389.
Kamali, B., and R. Hashim. 2008. Mangrove restoration without planting. Ecological
Engineering 37:387–391.
58
Kamthonkiat, D., C. Rodfai, A. Saiwanrungkul, S. Koshimura, and M. Matsuoka. 2011. Geoinformatics in mangrove monitoring: damage and recovery after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Phang Nga, Thailand. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 11:1851–1862.
Kauffman, J. B., and D. C. Donato. 2012. Protocols for the measurement, monitoring and
reporting of structure, biomass, and carbon stocks in mangrove forests. Working Paper 86. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Lewis III, R. R. 1999. Key concepts in successful ecological restoration of mangrove forests.
Pages 19-32 in Proceedings of the TCE-Workshops No. II, Coastal Environmental Improvement in Mangrove/Wetland Ecosystems, Bangkok, Thailand, August 18-23, 1998. Danish-SE Asian Collaboration in Tropical Coastal Ecosystems (TCE) Research and Training, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lewis III, R. R. 2000. Ecologically based goal setting in mangrove forest and tidal marsh
restoration. Ecological Engineering 15:191–198. Lewis III, R. R. 2001. Mangrove restoration - costs and benefits of successful ecological
restoration. Pages 1-18 in Proceedings of the Mangrove Valuation Workshop, Penang, Malaysia, April 4-8, 2001. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lewis III, R. R. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of
mangrove forests. Ecological Engineering 24:403–418. Lewis III, R. R. 2009. Mangrove field of dreams: if we build it, will they come? SWS Research
Brief 5:1–4. Lewis III, R. R. 2011. How successful mangrove forest restoration informs the process of
successful general wetland restoration. National Wetlands Newsletter 33:23–25. Lewis III, R. R., A. B. Hodgson, and G. S. Mauseth. 2005. Project facilitates the natural
reseeding of mangrove forests (Florida). Ecological Restoration 23:276–277. Lewis III, R. R., and R. G. Gilmore. 2007. Important considerations to achieve successful
mangrove forest restoration with optimum fish habitat. Bulletin of Marine Science 80:823–837.
Loyche, M. 1989. Mangrove of West Africa - the forest within the sea. Mangrove and Fish.
IDAF Newsletter 9: 18–31. Mangrove Action Project. 2007. Six steps to successful mangrove forest restoration emphasizing
the hydrologic restoration methodology. Mangrove Action Project, Port Angeles, Washington, USA.
59
Mangrove Action Project. 2013. Mangrove conservation and restoration. <http://mangroveactionproject.org/conservation-restoration/>
McKee, K. L., and P. L. Faulkner. 2000. Restoration of biogeochemical function in mangrove
forests. Restoration Ecology 8:247–259. NOAA Restoration Center and NOAA Coastal Services Center. 2010. Returning the tide, a tidal
hydrology restoration guidance manual for the southeastern U.S. NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Northern Territory Government. 2002. Mangrove management in the Northern Territory.
Northern Territory Government, Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Environment, Palmerston, Northern Territory, Australia.
Odum, W. E., C. C. McIvor, and I. J. Smith III. 1982. The ecology of the mangroves of South
Florida: a community profile. FWS/OBS-81/24. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., USA.
Pastorok, R. a, A. MacDonald, J. R. Sampson, D. J. Yozzo, and J. P. Titre. 1997. An ecological
decision framework for environmental restoration projects. Ecological Engineering 9:89–107.
Primavera, J. H., and J. M. a. Esteban. 2008. A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the
Philippines: successes, failures and future prospects. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16:345–358.
Quarto, A. 2007. Ecological mangrove restoration: workshop series. Pages 1-20 in Proceedings
of the National Ecological Mangrove Restoration - Technical Training Workshop Program, Tangalle, Sri Lanka, February 5-9, 2007. Mangrove Action Project, Port Angeles, Washington, USA.
Quarto, A. 2013. Ecological mangrove restoration (EMR): re-establishing a more biodiverse and
resilient coastal ecosystem with community participation. Mangrove Action Project, Port Angeles, Washington, USA.
Ravishankar, T. and R. Ramasubramanian. 2004. Manual on mangrove nursery techniques. M.S.
Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India. Rönnbäck, P., B. Crona, and L. Ingwall. 2007. The return of ecosystem goods and services in
replanted mangrove forests: perspectives from local communities in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 34:313–324.
Ruiz-jaen, M. C., and T. M. Aide. 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured?
Retoration Ecology 13:569–577.
60
Samson, M. S., and R. N. Rollon. 2008. Growth performance of planted mangroves in the Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37:234–240.
Sanyal, P. 1998. Rehabilitation of degraded mangrove forests of the Sunderbans of India. Pages
1-25 in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems, Phuket, Thailand, January 19-24, 1998. Phuket Marine Biological Center, Phuket, Thailand.
Sathirathai, S., and E. B. Barbier. 2001. Valuing mangrove conservation in Southern Thailand.
Contemporary Economic Policy 19:109–122. Shaff, C., J. Reiher, and J. Campbell. 2007. OWEB guide to photo point monitoring. Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon, USA. Stone, K., M. Bhat, R. Bhatta, and A. Mathews. 2008. Factors influencing community
participation in mangroves restoration: a contingent valuation analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management 51:476–484.
Turner, R. E., and R. R. Lewis III. 1997. Hydrologic restoration of coastal wetlands. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 4:65–72. Twilley, R. R., V. H. Rivera-Monroy, R. Chen, and L. Botero. 1998. Adapting an ecological
mangrove model to simulate trajectories in restoration ecology. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37:404–419.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual: arid west region (version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Massachusetts, USA.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. Adaptive Management.
< http://www.doi.gov/archive/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/> Vaiphasa, C., W. F. de Boer, A. K. Skidmore, S. Panitchart, T. Vaiphasa, N. Bamrongrugsa, and
P. Santitamnont. 2007. Impact of solid shrimp pond waste materials on mangrove growth and mortality: a case study from Pak Phanang, Thailand. Hydrobiologia 591:47–57.
Valiela, I., J. L. Bowen, and J. K. York. 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened
major tropical environments. BioScience 51:807–815. Watson, J.G. 1928. Mangrove forests of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan Forest Records No. 6.
Forest Department, Federated Malay States, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
61
Waycott, M., L. J. McKenzie, J. E. Mellors, J. C. Ellison, M. T. Sheaves, C. Collier, A. Schwarz, A. Webb, J. E. Johnson, and C. E. Payri. 2011. Vulnerability of mangroves, seasgrasses, and intertidal flats in the tropical Pacific to climate change. Pages 297-367 in Bell, J. D., J. E. Johnson, and A. J. Hobday, editors. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.